Letters to the Editor
-
I'll wait for the debates.
“Star power” can be a shallow thing. Often is seems to be most effective at only generating more interest in the star, ramping up the cult of celebrity/personality factor around the star and not much else. I make a conscious effort to remove it from my considerations when voting. One need not be a “star” to have a personality and communications skills that are appealing and effective in whatever way a situation calls for, that is, I don’t completely devalue the need for distinctive, compelling personality.
My challenge when considering Obama is to not let the hype and over-exposure, where the terms “star” and “rock star” are commonplace, turn me off so much that I don’t examine his potential to govern. It’s tough and I’ll admit at this stage I am completely, totally turned off by his possible candidacy. I wonder how many others find the “rock star” label to have a cheapening effect on Obama.
Obama doesn’t seem to represent anything substantially different than Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Gore, etc. (certainly that group of possibles is different than Biden or Bayh though). I suppose that’s another reason I can’t get too wild over him – why? As many have noted too, Dean was the buzz candidate early on in the ’04 cycle and we see where that ended – intense media attention can decide to cut the other way in the blink of an eye (a star-burning-out narrative can easily be created by the media because we love to see the mighty fall...it sells and if it's on video all the better because viral sells better than anything).
I’ll wait to see them debate a few times before I draw too many conclusions.